Judge Dismisses Buffalo Wild Wings Boneless Wings Lawsuit as Baseless

An Illinois judge recently dismissed a lawsuit concerning Buffalo Wild Wings’ boneless chicken wings, stating the case has “no meat on its bones.” The dispute originated from a claim made by customer Aimen Halim, who alleged the restaurant’s terminology was misleading.

Background of the Lawsuit

Aimen Halim filed his lawsuit in early 2023 after ordering boneless wings at a Buffalo Wild Wings location in Illinois. He expected a product made from deboned chicken wings. Instead, he received chicken breast meat, which he argued was deceptive.

According to court documents, had he known the truth about the ingredients, Halim would have either refused to purchase the menu item or would have paid a lower price. He sought monetary damages for the deception, claiming that the term “boneless wings” misrepresented the dish.

Judge’s Ruling

On Tuesday, Judge John Tharp Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Halim’s claims. He remarked that the plaintiff did not present sufficient facts to support his argument.

The judge stated that the term “boneless wings” is not intended to mislead consumers. Instead, he described it as a “fanciful name.” Tharp noted that words can have different meanings and cited the example of “buffalo wing,” which refers to the sauce rather than the meat source.

Consumer Expectations

Tharp highlighted that a reasonable consumer would not assume that Buffalo Wild Wings’ boneless wings are actually deboned chicken wings. He drew a parallel to cauliflower wings, suggesting that customers understand these items are not made from traditional wing meat.

Furthermore, the judge mentioned that “boneless wings” is a common term that has been utilized in the industry for over two decades, indicating broad familiarity among consumers. Buffalo Wild Wings also contended that “context clues” suggest the product cannot possibly be made from wing meat.

Next Steps for the Plaintiff

In closing his ruling, Judge Tharp provided Halim with a deadline of March 20 to file an amended complaint if he chooses to pursue the matter further. The responses from both the restaurant chain and Halim’s legal team following the ruling have not yet been disclosed.